Cribbage's Standardised Test Averages (UPDATED November 2018 - posts 753-755)

[cnerd123]

Allrounders are interesting. If you take the square of the multiples of bat value and bowl value, to find a sort of "rounded allrounder value", this is the top 25:

1. GS Sobers (WI) - 2.46
2. JH Kallis (SA) - 2.33
3. Imran Khan (Pak) - 2.20
4. TL Goddard (SA) - 2.08
5. WR Hammond (Eng) - 2.03
6. KR Miller (Aus) - 2.00
7. SM Pollock (SA) - 1.91
8. N Kapil Dev (Ind) - 1.89
9. Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) - 1.88
10. FMM Worrell (WI) - 1.84
11. MA Noble (Aus) - 1.83
12. Mushtaq Mohammad (Pak) - 1.80
13. W Rhodes (Eng) - 1.79
14. R Benaud (Aus) - 1.77
15. GA Faulkner (SA) - 1.76
16. AK Davidson (Aus) - 1.75
17. Shakib Al Hasan (Ban) - 1.73
18. G Giffen (Aus) - 1.73
19. WW Armstrong (Aus) - 1.71
20. W Bates (Eng) - 1.71
21. JR Reid (NZ) - 1.70
22. IT Botham (Eng) - 1.69
23. Asif Iqbal (Pak) - 1.69
24. KD Walters (Aus) - 1.67
25. SR Waugh (Aus) - 1.66

Seems to be slightly bat-skewed, which doesn't surprise me much when you look at the values at the tops of the batting and bowling lists (ie. the best batsmen are slightly higher than the best bowlers, even ignoring Bradman). This seems to be because great batsmen tend to play on a bit longer than great bowlers and therefore have more longevity.

Shakib > Botham confirmed

 

[Bolo]

An earlier peak usually results in a higher rating, and there is a pretty strong relationship between rating and career best stats (given at least a number of years played). It doesn't really make sense, but it happens

But player A is also rated higher because he dominated the bowlers, played on tougher pitches and against better attacks, was the best bat in his team, wasn't a HTB etc.

 

[vcs]

If you look at the 20 bowlers with the longest careers:

1. N Kapil Dev (Ind) - 16.11
2. CA Walsh (WI) - 15.33
3. M Muralitharan (SL) - 15.31
4. Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) - 14.82
5. A Kumble (Ind) - 14.69
6. GS Sobers (WI) - 14.34
7. DL Vettori (NZ) - 13.88
8. Wasim Akram (Pak) - 13.39
9. Imran Khan (Pak) - 13.24
10. LR Gibbs (WI) - 13.07
11. WPUJC Vaas (SL) - 12.85
12. SK Warne (Aus) - 12.22
13. Intikhab Alam (Pak) - 11.73
14. JM Anderson (Eng) - 11.59
15. R Benaud (Aus) - 11.51
16. CEL Ambrose (WI) - 11.49
17. J Briggs (Eng) - 11.10
18. BS Bedi (Ind) - 11.09
19. Waqar Younis (Pak) - 10.83
20. GD McGrath (Aus) - 10.75


And the 20 batsmen:
1. SR Tendulkar (Ind) - 22.62
2. S Chanderpaul (WI) - 17.49
3. Javed Miandad (Pak) - 16.91
4. GS Sobers (WI) - 16.69
5. A Ranatunga (SL) - 16.69
6. DPMD Jayawardene (SL) - 16.09
7. R Dravid (Ind) - 15.94
8. JH Kallis (SA) - 15.92
9. SR Waugh (Aus) - 15.65
10. SM Gavaskar (Ind) - 15.53
11. AR Border (Aus) - 15.44
12. PA de Silva (SL) - 15.35
13. DL Haynes (WI) - 15.07
14. IVA Richards (WI) - 14.93
15. RT Ponting (Aus) - 14.82
16. RN Harvey (Aus) - 14.53
17. KC Sangakkara (SL) - 14.43
18. CH Lloyd (WI) - 14.40
19. M Azharuddin (Ind) - 14.34
20. JG Wright (NZ) - 14.20

it's easy to see batsmen tend to play longer, so batting and bowling longevity is somewhat an apples/oranges comparison, especially since a bunch of the "bowlers" on that list were in fact allrounders who took on less of a bowling role towards the end of their careers to extend them.

Anderson looks like he should be quite a bit higher..

 

[Coronis]

An earlier peak usually results in a higher rating, and there is a pretty strong relationship between rating and career best stats (given at least a number of years played). It doesn't really make sense, but it happens

But player A is also rated higher because he dominated the bowlers, played on tougher pitches and against better attacks, was the best bat in his team, wasn't a HTB etc.

Im confused, this is a purely hypothetical example, not based on real players.

 

[Bolo]

It describes the careers of Viv and Clarke. They have just been hypothetically normalised.

 

[Flem274*]

i was thinking it's viv vs sangakkara

 

[Coronis]

It describes the careers of Viv and Clarke. They have just been hypothetically normalised.

Regardless, the whole point of the question was without any other known external factors, how people would rate them.

 

[Bolo]

My point was that there can't be an gotcha moment when people claim to rate player B higher by highlighting the fact that in reality everyone rates Viv higher, because there are external factors.

Hypothetically, I rate player A higher for reasons both logical and illogical. Logically, 3 hundreds are probably worth more than one triple, which is barely any more likely to have an impact on result than a double.

Illogically, because I would rate a player with a higher peak average ahead. Averaging 60 in the first half of a career and 40 in the second is exactly the same as 40/60, but I rate the first player ahead.

 

[weldone]

A would definitely have the better reputation imo. Particularly internationally. B would be more beloved by their home country but would never have had the superstar aura that A had when they splashed onto the scene and dominated for 3-5 years. While B performs at that level later in their career, people don't get as hype about that.

Oh right, player A would definitely have the better reputation, I would personally prefer B though.

I agree with this. First impressions count.

Exactly

i was thinking it's viv vs sangakkara

The numbers aren't specific to any particular comparison. I was thinking why guys like Viv and Ponting have better reputation than where they've been rated in this. Obviously there are other factors (particularly for Viv) but you can't ignore the psychological impact the first half of their respective careers had on cricket fans. Chanderpaul is in the other extreme - the guy was averaging in low 40s for a long part of his career. I think people would big him up if he was averaging 60-ish in the first half even with that awkward stance (just like people are bigging up Steve Smith now).

 

[Coronis]

My point was that there can't be an gotcha moment when people claim to rate player B higher by highlighting the fact that in reality everyone rates Viv higher, because there are external factors.

Hypothetically, I rate player A higher for reasons both logical and illogical. Logically, 3 hundreds are probably worth more than one triple, which is barely any more likely to have an impact on result than a double.

Illogically, because I would rate a player with a higher peak average ahead. Averaging 60 in the first half of a career and 40 in the second is exactly the same as 40/60, but I rate the first player ahead.

Illogical indeed.

 

[Bolo]

Hmmm, very surprising that these don't represent viv and Clarke. Viv hit a his first 4000 at 63 and fell away at the end to average 50.

Clarke averaged 40 for a long period, improved to a 48 average before a late career triple took his average to 52, after which he fell away to average 49. That is a whole lot of similar.

 

[Bolo]

Viv and Sobers are the two highest rated bats. They have in common aggression and being good from an early age (highest career average average at some point).

Lara and Tendulkar are the highest rated of the modern bats. Good from a young age and aggressive. Then probably Ponting. Agressive but took slightly longer to hit the heights. Behind them Sanga. Less aggressive and hit his peak at the back end. Chanders way behind. Not aggressive and only peaked at the very end.

Final career average doesn't seem to play much of a role in where these guys are rated. Nor does average for peak period, only peak average.

See also Botham. Aggression and peaking early. Comparable to peak Hadlee (mid career and less aggressive), but rated well ahead. Botham had similar numbers to mid career Pollock (other than rpt), but is rated a million percent ahead.

 

[Spikey]

Allrounders are interesting. If you take the square of the multiples of bat value and bowl value, to find a sort of "rounded allrounder value", this is the top 25:

1. GS Sobers (WI) - 2.46
2. JH Kallis (SA) - 2.33
3. Imran Khan (Pak) - 2.20
4. TL Goddard (SA) - 2.08
5. WR Hammond (Eng) - 2.03
6. KR Miller (Aus) - 2.00
7. SM Pollock (SA) - 1.91
8. N Kapil Dev (Ind) - 1.89
9. Sir RJ Hadlee (NZ) - 1.88
10. FMM Worrell (WI) - 1.84
11. MA Noble (Aus) - 1.83
12. Mushtaq Mohammad (Pak) - 1.80
13. W Rhodes (Eng) - 1.79
14. R Benaud (Aus) - 1.77
15. GA Faulkner (SA) - 1.76
16. AK Davidson (Aus) - 1.75
17. Shakib Al Hasan (Ban) - 1.73
18. G Giffen (Aus) - 1.73
19. WW Armstrong (Aus) - 1.71
20. W Bates (Eng) - 1.71
21. JR Reid (NZ) - 1.70
22. IT Botham (Eng) - 1.69
23. Asif Iqbal (Pak) - 1.69
24. KD Walters (Aus) - 1.67
25. SR Waugh (Aus) - 1.66

Seems to be slightly bat-skewed, which doesn't surprise me much when you look at the values at the tops of the batting and bowling lists (ie. the best batsmen are slightly higher than the best bowlers, even ignoring Bradman). This seems to be because great batsmen tend to play on a bit longer than great bowlers and therefore have more longevity.

Is there a statistical method which doesn't overvalue batting all rounders?

Well batting all-rounders are more valuable anyway so it works out good

 

[trundler]

Nah, that's insane. Bowling all rounders win you more matches.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Nah, that's insane. Bowling all rounders win you more matches.

I guess because they have to take part in the getting the opposition's 20 wickets.

Much, much more valuable than those pampered batting allrounders.

 

[srbhkshk]

It depends on the team - if you are batting heavy, you'd rather have a bowling all rounder and vice versa.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

^^And this is why all these stats are (indirectly) useless.

 

[Prince EWS]

Chappell has by far the highest standardised average of that lot, just played about five less years. If we included WSC, which he dominated, he'd probably be ahead of Sunny.

Viv never comes out well on these things unless people isolate peaks.

Speaking of which, I've had a crack at that.

Here's a list of the best five year (or the equivalent of five full years when players have missed games) batting peaks in terms of standardised average:

1. DG Bradman (Aus) - 106.42 (8 Mar 1929 - 18 Aug 1934)
2. JB Hobbs (Eng) - 72.08 (11 Mar 1910 - 31 Dec 1920)
3. WR Hammond (Eng) - 67.77 (23 Jun 1928 - 31 Mar 1933)
4. IVA Richards (WI) - 65.07 (23 Jan 1976 - 30 Jan 1982)
5. C Hill (Aus) - 64.73 (13 Dec 1897 - 11 Dec 1903)
6. SJ McCabe (Aus) - 64.08 (10 Feb 1933 - 24 Jun 1938)
7. AD Nourse (SA) - 62.36 (18 Feb 1939 - 21 Jun 1951)
8. L Hutton (Eng) - 61.73 (27 Dec 1948 - 30 Mar 1954)
9. GA Headley (WI) - 61.57 (11 Jan 1930 - 21 Jan 1948)
10. KF Barrington (Eng) - 60.71 (10 Jan 1962 - 8 Feb 1968)
11. SR Tendulkar (Ind) - 60.49 (11 Feb 1993 - 25 Mar 1998)
12. RN Harvey (Aus) - 60.06 (6 Feb 1948 - 9 Jul 1953)
13. PBH May (Eng) - 59.74 (12 Aug 1954 - 18 Jun 1959)
14. HM Amla (SA) - 59.66 (3 Jan 2010 - 2 Jan 2015)
15. Hanif Mohammad (Pak) - 59.61 (11 Oct 1956 - 31 May 1962)
16. KC Sangakkara (SL) - 59.44 (25 May 2006 - 3 Nov 2011)
17. H Sutcliffe (Eng) - 59.41 (10 Jul 1926 - 2 Dec 1932)
18. B Sutcliffe (NZ) - 59.24 (21 Mar 1947 - 24 Dec 1953)
19. AB de Villiers (SA) - 58.95 (26 Feb 2009 - 1 Mar 2014)
20. SM Gavaskar (Ind) - 58.83 (23 Jan 1975 - 29 Jan 1980)
21. JH Kallis (SA) - 58.67 (15 Mar 2002 - 2 Jan 2008)
22. BC Lara (WI) - 58.60 (2 Jan 2001 - 19 Nov 2006)
23. ED Weekes (WI) - 58.53 (27 Mar 1948 - 19 Feb 1953)
24. CL Walcott (WI) - 57.82 (8 Feb 1952 - 13 Mar 1958)
25. GS Sobers (WI) - 57.68 (16 Feb 1962 - 13 Jan 1967)
26. V Kohli (Ind) - 57.30 (14 Nov 2013 - 12 Oct 2018)
27. WM Woodfull (Aus) - 56.44 (26 Jun 1926 - 29 Jan 1932)
28. DCS Compton (Eng) - 56.15 (10 Jun 1938 - 12 Aug 1950)
29. RB Kanhai (WI) - 55.78 (12 Dec 1958 - 25 Jul 1963)
30. RT Ponting (Aus) - 55.57 (22 Feb 2002 - 8 Nov 2007)

Richards as predicted comes out well on this measure. I expected Ponting to fare better than that though.

(perhaps worth noting that I haven't tested this properly at all so there could be some bugs in the code for that)

 

[Coronis]

Speaking of which, I've had a crack at that.

Here's a list of the best five year (or the equivalent of five full years when players have missed games) batting peaks in terms of standardised average:

1. DG Bradman (Aus) - 106.42 (8 Mar 1929 - 18 Aug 1934)
2. JB Hobbs (Eng) - 72.08 (11 Mar 1910 - 31 Dec 1920)
3. WR Hammond (Eng) - 67.77 (23 Jun 1928 - 31 Mar 1933)
4. IVA Richards (WI) - 65.07 (23 Jan 1976 - 30 Jan 1982)
5. C Hill (Aus) - 64.73 (13 Dec 1897 - 11 Dec 1903)
6. SJ McCabe (Aus) - 64.08 (10 Feb 1933 - 24 Jun 1938)
7. AD Nourse (SA) - 62.36 (18 Feb 1939 - 21 Jun 1951)
8. L Hutton (Eng) - 61.73 (27 Dec 1948 - 30 Mar 1954)
9. GA Headley (WI) - 61.57 (11 Jan 1930 - 21 Jan 1948)
10. KF Barrington (Eng) - 60.71 (10 Jan 1962 - 8 Feb 1968)
11. SR Tendulkar (Ind) - 60.49 (11 Feb 1993 - 25 Mar 1998)
12. RN Harvey (Aus) - 60.06 (6 Feb 1948 - 9 Jul 1953)
13. PBH May (Eng) - 59.74 (12 Aug 1954 - 18 Jun 1959)
14. HM Amla (SA) - 59.66 (3 Jan 2010 - 2 Jan 2015)
15. Hanif Mohammad (Pak) - 59.61 (11 Oct 1956 - 31 May 1962)
16. KC Sangakkara (SL) - 59.44 (25 May 2006 - 3 Nov 2011)
17. H Sutcliffe (Eng) - 59.41 (10 Jul 1926 - 2 Dec 1932)
18. B Sutcliffe (NZ) - 59.24 (21 Mar 1947 - 24 Dec 1953)
19. AB de Villiers (SA) - 58.95 (26 Feb 2009 - 1 Mar 2014)
20. SM Gavaskar (Ind) - 58.83 (23 Jan 1975 - 29 Jan 1980)
21. JH Kallis (SA) - 58.67 (15 Mar 2002 - 2 Jan 2008)
22. BC Lara (WI) - 58.60 (2 Jan 2001 - 19 Nov 2006)
23. ED Weekes (WI) - 58.53 (27 Mar 1948 - 19 Feb 1953)
24. CL Walcott (WI) - 57.82 (8 Feb 1952 - 13 Mar 1958)
25. GS Sobers (WI) - 57.68 (16 Feb 1962 - 13 Jan 1967)
26. V Kohli (Ind) - 57.30 (14 Nov 2013 - 12 Oct 2018)
27. WM Woodfull (Aus) - 56.44 (26 Jun 1926 - 29 Jan 1932)
28. DCS Compton (Eng) - 56.15 (10 Jun 1938 - 12 Aug 1950)
29. RB Kanhai (WI) - 55.78 (12 Dec 1958 - 25 Jul 1963)
30. RT Ponting (Aus) - 55.57 (22 Feb 2002 - 8 Nov 2007)

Richards as predicted comes out well on this measure. I expected Ponting to fare better than that though.

(perhaps worth noting that I haven't tested this properly at all so there could be some bugs in the code for that)

Odd, Sutcliffe's overall standardised is 62.79 yet his peak average is 59.41? Hill and McCabe big (and welcome) surprises there.

 

[Prince EWS]

Odd, Sutcliffe's overall standardised is 62.79 yet his peak average is 59.41?

This could be due to a bug I haven't found yet, but it's possible for it to be true without that.

For example, take this four number long list:
10, 10, 1, 10

The average of all these numbers is 7.5, but the the biggest "peak of three" you can get averages out to only 7. It could just be a quirk in his career such that he never had a period of five years running that averaged out to be more than his actual career standardised average.